-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
The accuracy is different from the paper. #3
Comments
This is weird, I just reproduced them for another issue. Could you share your log and executing command? |
Yes, could you please tell me your email? i will share my log with you through email. |
Looking at your log, I would say that one of the main differences is the batch size. Since you multiply it for the number of gpus, you should modify the learning rate accordingly. I would suggest you train without the multiplier: batch size 128, lr 0.1. Since the pytorch versions are different I would suggest you also try the previous version. Basically, try to keep as close as possible to the original setup. Also try with 5 different random seeds, you should get a number closer to the results in the paper in the median. |
Thanks,i train your code without the multiplier: batch size 128, lr 0.1. But among the 3 runs, the best val acc is 96.07%. I don't know why it is not as good as the result of the paper. |
Does it happen with all the other setups? |
I also use the setups as your log(./log/wrn_40_10_ad=3_aw=4_err=3.45), the best val acc is only 96.03%. |
Weird, I'll try to run it again with the new version of pytorch. Meanwhile it would be interesting to see what results you get with the dropout versions. I reproduced these ones recently for another issue and there was no problem, the numbers where as in the paper. |
Thank you for your reply, but i have not run the dropout versions yet. |
Hi, @prlz77 I have the same problem, I can't get the same accuracy as in the paper, what's worse, I run train_cifar10_warn.sh with the default settings, the best accuracy is 95.5%. The biggest difference is that I use PyTorch 1.0.1, is that what really matter? |
@Fridaycoder it could be. I'll try to run again with pytorch 1.3.1 |
hi, i use your original code(it is wrn_28_10_ad=0_aw=0) to train cifar10, and get the best val accuracy is 95.99%, but when i use the attention version(the params are the same as ./log/wrn_28_10_ad=3_aw=4_err=3.45), the best val acc is 95.88%. it is even worse than the original code(without attention), could you explain it?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: